Conclusion

This section provides an answer on the main research question. This question is as follows: ‘Which classical strategic management tools from the positioning school are still useful in practice?’

It can be concluded that the BCG-matrix is the only tool which is used nowadays within the studied organisations. Because all four studied strategic management tools are linked to the positioning school, this outcome indicates that the positioning school adds no value to the process of strategy making nowadays. Organisations are mainly focussed on their (financial) results and assess their strategy based on these results.

The analysis of the findings indicate some interesting points regarding the ten schools of thought, the positioning school and the strategic management tools which belong to the positioning school.

First of all, there is relatively little familiarity with the ten schools of thought. It can be concluded that the support of the ten schools of thought is low. Just 50% of the studied organisations were aware of the existence of the ten schools of thought. Organisations which do not apply one of the schools, are still successful in their operations and the process of strategy making. This is confirmed by the results gathered through the literature study and semi-structured interviews. As mentioned before, the positioning school is part of Mintzberg’s ten schools of thought. In the extension of the results regarding the familiarity of the ten schools of thought, the awareness of the positioning school is also relatively low. It is stated that when organisations do not know the ten schools of thought, they are also not familiar with the positioning school. The organisations which were familiar with the positioning school, have heard of it but are not familiar with the detailed content of this school.

Because the positioning school is narrowly related to the concept of strategy, it is important to mention that there is a diversified fulfilment of the concept of strategy. However in general the interpretations are in common with each other. Within the fulfilment of the concept of strategy it is not usual to mention a time circle. Nevertheless, for organisations it is important to consider the time pattern of the process of strategy making.

The positioning school can be related to two persons/groups. These are Michael Porter and the Boston Consulting Group. The literature study stated that Michael Porter is the ‘founding father’ of the positioning school. However, this was a small percentage which mentioned Porter in such a way. It can be concluded that Michael Porter is most of the time seen as a ‘stand- alone’ person/concept. This is confirmed by the results gathered through the literature study and interviews. There was a relatively high familiarity with Porter.

The Boston Consulting Group is in all the cases seen as a ‘stand-alone’ concept. In none of the cases it is linked to the positioning school. It can be concluded that the general knowledge regarding the ten schools of thought/positioning school is relatively low. Otherwise the organisations should know that the BCG is a part of the positioning school.

43

As mentioned before, the positioning school contains four strategic management tools: five forces model, generic strategies, value chain analysis and the BCG-matrix. This study was conducted to investigate whether the positioning school and its stools are still useful in the practical field.

Doubts arise regarding the applicability of the five forces model. Based on the results from the field studies, it can be concluded that the five forces model needs some adjustments. It is not all-embracing. It can be stated that the model is focussed mainly on companies which produce products. Companies that operate in the service sector, cannot apply this model because they do not have suppliers. The five forces model analyses the industry, however the firm-specific factors are also very important for organisations. This could be one of the motives why organisations do not apply the five forces model.

The generic strategies is a tool which is not applied in the practical field. Organisations must choose between two main strategies. When a company wants to combine these two strategies, they will be unsuccessful as Porter stated. Organisations are not convinced that such a model can comprise all the important focus points and activities. Moreover, the environment is currently changing fast because of the internet. It is therefore difficult to put something into four rigid boxes.

The value chain analysis is mentioned superficially. It is stated that there are no points of criticism to the value chain. Doubts arise regarding this statement, and it is therefore irresponsible to conclude something about the value chain analysis.

As already mentioned before, the BCG-matrix is the only tool which is used within the studied organisations nowadays. The matrix is used because it gives a clear overview. Moreover, the simplicity in the application/implementation is very attractive to apply the tool.

Besides, it is important to mention that the degree of coincidence is an important factor in the process of strategy making. Not every organisation performs a thorough strategy analysis. The degree of coincidence decides the direction chosen by a company.

5.2 Discussion

The main research question of the present study was: ‘Which classical strategic management tools from the positioning school are still useful in practice?’ As the question already implicates, this study focused on the positioning school and its tools. These tools are the five forces model, generic strategies, value chain analysis and the BCG-matrix. In order to answer the main research question qualitative research methods were applied. The methods were literature study and semi-structured interviews. As concluded in the previous section, the positioning school is still applicable in the practical field. However, this conclusion cannot be linked to the tools of the positioning school. From all the four tools, only the BCG-matrix is used within organisations nowadays.

In the theoretical framework it is stated that the positioning school is part of the ten schools of thought from Henry Mintzberg. Based on the theoretical framework, it was expected that the ten schools of thought framework was relatively known/commonly used within the theoretical field. This expectation arose because a whole book is written about the ten schools of thought framework. The book gave the impression that the framework was a well-known framework in the field of strategy. During the literature study, it became clear that the ten schools of thought framework was not that well known/commonly used as expected. Because this outcome was kind of unexpected, there was no expectation about the results derived from the semi- structured interviews. The results from the semi-structured interviews indicated that the ten

44

schools of thought is kind of known but not applied within the organisations. The study in the practical field contained six organisations. For this reason, it is hard to conclude that the framework regarding the ten schools of thought is not applied or useful within organisations because it is just a low number of studied organisations. The results of the interviews indicated that there is not always awareness of frameworks for the process of strategy making. This is another reason why it is not correct to conclude that the ten schools of thought is not useful for organisations. When organisations do know the framework regarding the ten schools of thought, they could probably implement one of the ten schools.

As mentioned before, the positioning school is part of the ten schools of thought. For that reason, it was expected that when the ten schools of thought is unknown, the positioning school is also unknown. This was expected for both the literature study and semi-structured interviews. During the literature study, it became clear that this statement is not always true. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the positioning school is always related to the ten schools of thought. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the positioning school can also be seen as a ‘stand-alone’ concept. The expectation regarding the outcome of the literature study was not met. However the results of the semi-structured interviews were in line with the expectations. The studied organisations which were familiar with the positioning school, were also familiar with the ten schools of thought framework. This outcome makes it therefore harder to conclude whether the positioning school is always related to the ten schools of thought.

Thereby, it was studied whether the positioning school is still applicable/useful nowadays. The outcome of the literature study indicates that the positioning school is still applicable. This outcome was expected. It is based on the fact that there are no points of criticism given regarding the positioning school within the studied articles. However, the outcome of the semi- structured interviews states that the studied organisations do not apply the positioning school because they think it adds no value to their current process of strategy making. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the positioning school is still applicable but not useful for organisations. Because the studied articles state that the positioning school is still applicable/useful and the studied organisations state the opposite, it is hard to conclude the reasons why there is a gap between these outcomes.

The theoretical framework states that the positioning school focuses on the external environment. Within this school there are four strategic management tools which can be used, namely the five forces model, generic strategies, value chain analysis and the BCG-matrix. As described earlier, the five forces model, generic strategies and value chain analysis are models founded by Michael Porter. The BCG-matrix, is founded by the Boston Consulting Group. It can be therefore concluded that the positioning school is related to the work of Porter and the Boston Consulting Group. This was also the main expectation during the literature study. However, the findings of the literature study are remarkable. Within the studied articles, Porter is more related to the positioning school in comparison to the Boston Consulting Group. Several authors describe Porter or his work, as the base for the positioning school (Johnsen, 2014; Stonehouse & Snowdon, 2007). These authors do not refer to the Boston Consulting Group. Comparing this outcome with the theoretical framework, it seems a logical outcome, because three of the four tools within this school are invented by Porter. The results of the interviews indicate that the BCG-matrix is of such importance in the practical field. For this reason, it is not correct to refer only to Porter as the founder of the positioning school. Thereby, looking at the results of the interviews it is only the BCG-matrix of the Boston Consulting Group which is used in practice and not the tools of Porter.

45

As already described above, the BCG-matrix is the only tool which is applied within the practical field. This is a remarkable fact. The information presented in the theoretical framework states that a company first applies the five forces model to analyse the environment, followed by the generic strategies framework to choose a strategy. When one of the strategies is chosen, a company should analyse their value chain to be aware of the chain within the organisations. And through the BCG-matrix a portfolio can be analysed. Based on this information, the expectation arose that it would be the same in the theoretical and practical field. However, during the literature study it became clear that these strategic management tools can be used separately from each other. And that a five forces model is not necessary for the generic strategies framework. It is therefore unrealistic to conclude that all the strategic management tools are equally useful and applicable within organisations. This fact is supported by the data gathered through the semi-structured interviews. As some studied organisations indicate, not every tool is useful for every type of organisation or market in which an organisation operates. Based on only the results from this study, the BCG-matrix is the only tool applied by organisations nowadays.

During the literature study, it became clear that there are probably more tools which can be (in)directly related to the positioning school. For example the Boyne and Walker (2004) framework. This framework is based on several tools, including the generic strategies. It is therefore possible that there are more frameworks/tools that combine strategic management tools into one tool. This study only focused on the four tools within the positioning school. The last discussion point regarding the findings/conclusions of this study contains the fast changing environment. Through the semi-structured interviews it became clear that three companies develop a strategy based on experiences or a degree of coincidence in potential customers. Moreover, it was mentioned that the market is quickly changing nowadays and that this cannot be put in a simple tool. This could be due to the fact of upcoming technology and the internet. On this point, there were no expectations. Upcoming technology and the internet can be regarded as reasons why organisations do not apply the positioning school. Nowadays technology and the internet is changing fast. Organisations need to have a clear and good working website in order to compete with other organisations through the world. It is no longer a competition between local organisations. This can be remarked as an important factor in the process of strategy making within organisations. During the literature study, it became clear that the Porter’s generic strategies framework is not applicable in a digital environment. The article of Kim & Stimpert (2004) give adjustments to the generic strategies in order to be valuable for organisations within a digital environment. Based on this, it is hard to conclude whether all the strategic management tools of Porter are applicable in a digital environment. Besides, in recent years the economy has shown alarming signals. Most of the markets have shown a decrease in results due to the financial crisis. Because of this occurrence, the trust of organisations within markets has declined. This fact is supported by the results from the interviews. Organisations undertake actions regarding the strategy based on their feelings and experiences. These facts are not mentioned in the articles from the theoretical framework and literature study. It is therefore difficult to conclude that the strategies based on experiences/feelings are better/worse than strategies based on the strategic management tools. But it should be kept in mind that the degree of coincidence in potential customers and experiences/feelings are an important factor in the process of strategy making.

46

The framework regarding the ten schools of thought, and therefore also the positioning school, date back to approximately 20 years ago. Because this framework is relatively old, it was expected that the ten schools of thought, especially the positioning school, are not fully applicable within the world nowadays. This expectation is fully met. The positioning school and its strategic management tools do not enclose the important requirements for companies nowadays. Moreover, 20 years ago, the environment was not changing as quickly as it is nowadays.

5.3 Implications

This section describes some implications of this study. The first implication is the confirmation regarding an update of the positioning school and its tools. During the theoretical field study, it became clear that there is a relatively low number of articles which refer to the positioning school in combination with its strategic management tools. This is a logical consequence of the relatively low number of references within the articles to the ten schools of thought. During the practical field study it became clear that the strategic management tools of the positioning school are not really used within practice. One of the reasons why the studied organisations did not apply the strategic management tools is because they are convinced that the tools are not capable enough in the current environment. It can be concluded that the tools are a bit outdated. Because the tools within the positioning school are a bit outdated, it can be stated that the positioning school is also outdated. This is because all the statements and characteristics of the positioning school are presented in these tools. Mintzberg set up the ten schools of thought in 1998. In 2009, an update of Mintzberg’s book regarding Strategy Safari was made, however this update did not change the content of the ten schools of thought and specifically the positioning school. Moreover, the positioning school and its tools does not fit the current environment/business world. Based on this study, it can be concluded that the positioning school and its tools need some adjustments in order to add value in the current environment/business world. This study delivers a theoretical contribution for authors and research studies which are specified in the strategical field and/or the ten schools of thought. This study showed that the positioning school and its strategic management tools should be updated to gain more references and create a larger supporting base.

Besides the theoretical implication, this study delivers also a practical implication for organisations that are in the process of strategy making. This could be organisations starting up, or organisations that already exist for a couple of years. Within the organisation, this implication can be useful for the management board or management team because they are mainly involved and responsible in the process of strategy making. Because of this study organisations or other stakeholders can create more advantages on the field of strategy and especially regarding the strategic management tools of the positioning school.

The results of this study showed that just one of the four strategic management tools of the positioning school is used in practice. This is based on testing the functioning of the tools in practice. Moreover, the outcome of this study showed that all the tools do not function that well in the practical field as in the theoretical field. The BCG-matrix is the only tool which is used in practice. In most cases, the BCG-matrix was used because of the simplification in application and the clarity of the matrix itself. But it is worth to mention that the BCG-matrix is used/applied superficially. There is no extensive application of this matrix because the